A new lawsuit filed against Tyson Foods has made headlines. At first glance, it looks like a concerned shareholder simply demanding transparency. Filed in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, the suit seeks to force Tyson to turn over internal records about its poultry operations, citing both worker and animal welfare allegations. The plaintiff in this case, Michael Castagna, is described as a Tyson shareholder, but the suit is actually being driven by a new animal rights group, Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC). LIC characterizes the case as a shareholder “books-and-records” demand under Section 220 of Delaware law.

Legal Action for Chickens (LIC)

LIC is a California-based animal rights litigation group that received its 501 (c) (3) status in March 2022. A look at their first IRS Form 990 states, “Legal Impact for Chickens’ mission is to protect the welfare of farmed animals (livestock and poultry) through the use of the legal system. We primarily strive to achieve this goal through civil litigation.”

A review of their leadership team, most of whom previously worked at organizations like PETA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Food and Water Watch, Mercy For Animals, and the Humane Society of the United States (now called A Humane World for Animals), shines a light on their true agenda. The groups affiliated with the leadership team use animal welfare as a cover and openly support ending the use of animals for food entirely.

Who Is Behind Legal Impact for Chickens?

Here’s a snapshot of LIC’s leadership team, revealing a web of connections to major animal rights and environmental extremist organizations:

• Alene Anello (Founder & President): Former attorney for PETA, ALDF, and the Good Food Institute.
• Drew Givens (Managing Attorney): Previously worked with Animal Outlook.
• Sage Max (Legal Operations): Formerly with Mercy for Animals, World Animal Protection, and the Humane Society of the United States (now Humane World for Animals).
• Tyler Lobdell (Board Secretary): Staff attorney at Food & Water Watch, one of the most aggressive anti-agriculture litigation groups in the U.S.
• Sami Nabulsi (Board Treasurer): CEO and co-founder of Pythag Technologies, a cultivated (lab-grown) food company. His role makes clear that there are direct financial incentives to undermine traditional animal agriculture since many lab-grown and plant-based companies have stated their goal is to replace livestock production.

Animal Rights Groups Are Not Animal Welfare Groups

Animal rights groups are not welfare organizations. They oppose any human use of animals. Improving animal welfare is not their goal; the aim is to eliminate animal agriculture. The truth is that modern animal agriculture already depends on excellent care. Animals that are stressed, injured, or unhealthy simply will not thrive or produce. Farmers and ranchers have every reason to treat their animals with the best care and husbandry, and they do.

The Broader Strategy: “Shareholder Activism” Against Agriculture

The agricultural community, policymakers, and the public need to understand what’s truly happening. These are not concerned investors, but activist lawyers with ties to groups that openly oppose animal agriculture. This strategy is part of a larger campaign to erode consumer trust in traditional food systems and shift markets toward lab-grown and plant-based alternatives. Groups like Food & Water Watch and PETA have been at this for years; this is just their latest tactic. This Tyson lawsuit is an example of a growing strategy: manipulation through stock ownership. These groups are using two main approaches:

• Purchasing stocks to gain shareholder status, access company executives, and influence policy to promote their agenda. This is a tactic that PETA has employed for several years. PETA owns stock in Smithfield Foods, Maple Leaf Foods, Hormel Foods Corp., Mondelez International, Sanderson Farms, Tyson Foods, Kraft Heinz, and Domino's.
• Recruiting independent, outside shareholders to file lawsuits.

LIC has been signing up shareholders through its website’s web form, encouraging individuals who own stock in meat and egg companies to join and take legal action. Tyson, Costco, Pilgrim’s Pride, Cal–Maine, Hormel, Sanderson, and Seaboard are clearly listed on their recruitment page, along with their stock symbols.

These groups are using stockholder status to pressure companies with litigation and shareholder resolutions. The following are some examples:

• Costco Case (2022): Two shareholders, represented by attorneys connected to Food & Water Watch and Mercy for Animals, sued Costco over alleged chicken welfare violations.
• PETA: For years, PETA has filed shareholder resolutions and sent “shareholder letters” to companies ranging from restaurant chains to retailers, not to improve welfare, but to push for eliminating animal products altogether.
• ALDF & Tofurky (2018–2021): The Animal Legal Defense Fund and The Good Food Institute teamed up with Tofurky to challenge state laws that protect consumers from misleading labeling of plant-based and lab-grown foods.
• Other cases: Groups like Animal Outlook and Humane World for Animals (formerly HSUS) have pursued similar litigation to pressure companies and set legal precedents that favor their end goal: dismantling animal agriculture.

Animal Agriculture Must Advocate for The Truth

These lawsuits represent a coordinated effort to undermine agriculture from within. Instead of protests at farm gates, animal rights groups are now leveraging shareholder rights to initiate lawsuits, demand disclosures, and generate negative publicity. The Tyson lawsuit isn’t about safeguarding shareholders or improving welfare; it's part of a larger movement to end animal agriculture through the use of corporate law as a weapon. Legal Impact for Chickens, supported by a network of activist groups and individuals with direct financial links to alternative protein companies, seems to be emerging as the leader in this strategy.

When incidents like this make the news without fully revealing the ideological motives of the groups involved, it fosters an inaccurate, negative view of agriculture among the uninformed public. We must recognize this tactic for what it is and present the facts, so consumers understand the full truth: that American farmers and ranchers care for their animals exceptionally well, and these lawsuits are not based in science or fact but are a step in implementing an ideological agenda.

Links

Because we do not want to help these animal rights groups with their SEO, we will not be sharing links to their websites. However, we encourage readers to look into these groups. They have information on their websites about their shareholder activities and lawsuits.

MeatingPlace Article - New Twist on Activist Shareholder Pressure for 2025 HERE